xria:Are journalists in the US completely above the law, like Lethal Weapon "Diplomatic Immunity" style, or do they just think they are?

Endive Wombat:slayer199: The reporter is farked unless the Sun-Times covers the fines.

I thought that the courts more or less could not compel reporters to reveal their confidential sources.

It's a common misconception that there is some sort of basic "reporter's privilege" akin to Dr.-Patient, or Attorney client privilege that shields reporters from having to testify about who their sources are. Some state have passed limited jounalist shield laws but most still allow a court to compel a reporter to tesify if there is no other method of getting the desired information,

Now on the flip side it is a tenet of journalistic ethics that you never give up a source you have promised confidentiality to, no matter what, and if the judge sends you to jail for contempt, so be it. Indefinite prison sentences for contempt (IE going to jail until you comply) are a thign fo the past, and at this point the judge can only hold you until it becomes clear you will never comply with his order at which point htey have to either release you or have you criminally charged with contempt of court entitling you to a trial and generally carrying a maximum of 180 days in prison upon conviction

Cheron:xria: Are journalists in the US completely above the law, like Lethal Weapon "Diplomatic Immunity" style, or do they just think they are?

They are not but they should be. Democracy requires an informed electorate and forcing the press to give up sources limits the presses ability to keep the public informed

Difficulty: define "Journalist" in such a way as to not exclude any legitimate gatherer and publisher of information, but narrowly enough to prevent a bad guy from setting up a blog and then refusing to tesify on the grounds of reportorial privilege

Undertaker: "Well Sheriff, you see it was that medicine we drank during prohibition and well the Whore was looking mighty fine in my shop and we forgot about the corpse being on the table."Sheriff: "That medicine was 50% rubbing alcohol and then cocaine, heroin and semen."

As far as I can tell, the court has no real reason to need to know who leaked that report, they just want whoever it was to be punished. And since nobody admitted to leaking it, they will punish the reporter instead. The police need to do a better job of keeping information secure.

Iowan73:As far as I can tell, the court has no real reason to need to know who leaked that report, they just want whoever it was to be punished. And since nobody admitted to leaking it, they will punish the reporter instead. The police need to do a better job of keeping information secure.

Other than that whole "putting a gag order on everyone (keeping certain salacious details out of the public eye) so as to not taint the jury pool and then having one side violate it," thing, you might be correct.

Iowan73:As far as I can tell, the court has no real reason to need to know who leaked that report, they just want whoever it was to be punished. And since nobody admitted to leaking it, they will punish the reporter instead. The police need to do a better job of keeping information secure.

Magorn:Now on the flip side it is a tenet of journalistic ethics that you never give up a source you have promised confidentiality to, no matter what, and if the judge sends you to jail for contempt, so be it. Indefinite prison sentences for contempt (IE going to jail until you comply) are a thign fo the past, and at this point the judge can only hold you until it becomes clear you will never comply with his order at which point htey have to either release you or have you criminally charged with contempt of court entitling you to a trial and generally carrying a maximum of 180 days in prison upon conviction